Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Attitudes Nuc Waste Bassett
Attitudes Nuc Waste Bassett
3, 1996
No public policy issue has been as difficult as high-level nuclear waste. Debates continue regarding
Yucca Mountain as a disposal site, and-more generally-the appropriateness of geologic disposal
and the need to act quickly. Previous research has focused on possible social, political, and eco-
nomic consequences of a facility in Nevada. Impacts have been predicted to be potentially large
and to emanate mainly from stigmatization of the region due to increased perceptions of risk.
Analogous impacts from leaving waste at power plants have been either ignored or assumed to be
negligible. This paper presents survey results on attitudes of residents in three counties where
nuclear waste is currently stored. Topics include perceived risk, knowledge of nuclear waste and
radiation, and impacts on jobs, tourism, and housing values from leaving waste on site. Results
are similar to what has been reported for Nevada; the public is concerned about possible adverse
effects from on-site storage of waste.
KEY WORDS: Perceived risk; nuclear waste; social and economic impacts; survey; attitudes.
Given an opportunity to vote on having a HLNWR in their state, an overwhelming number of citizens would vote against it.
Compared to other environmental hazards, high-level nuclear waste is believed to be one of the most dangerous.
Compared to any other industrial or municipal facility, a HLNWR is the least desirable, often by wide margins.
Images of a HLNWR are so negative that they reveal deep dread, revulsion, and anger.
Perceptions of the risks associated with a HLNWR are closely tied to trust in government and trust in the agencies responsible for repository
management, especially the DOE.
There is widespread belief in the likelihood of accidents at a repository or in the transportation of waste to it and great concern over such
accidents.
Economic concerns appear in some analyses but are often overwhelmed by concerns over safety and health, including that of future
generations.
Knowledge is not a consistent factor in citizen opposition to a repository; it is correlated sometimes positively, more often negatively, and
sometimes not at all with repository attitudes.
If a repository were to be sited at Yucca Mountain the city of Las Vegas and the state would likely suffer substantial economic losses due
to a significant convention decline.
Past experience with other hazardous facilities or with other federal facilities is of only minor significance.
That opposition to a HLNWR is deep and widespread is revealed in the fact that, almost without exception, perceptions and attitudes toward
the reDositorv are unaffected by standard demographic variables.
a From Ref. 18.
5.5
5 I I
4.5
4
On-Site
storage
3.5
The survey was conducted in three counties near Questions were asked about the perceived likelihood of
existing nuclear power plants that have on-site storage an accident as well as a variety of economic impacts if
facilities. The locations were Lake County, Illinois it became known that the local facilities would be used
where the Zion plant is located; Berrien County in Mich- to store nuclear waste for the foreseeable future.
igan with the Palisades plant; and Van Buren County, Separate figures are presented below for men and
Michigan that contains the Cook plant. All of the plants women and sometimes for Michigan and Illinois respon-
are located on the southern part of Lake Michigan. The dents. Much of the previous research on environmental
Michigan plants are across the lake from Chicago, and attitudes has found significant differences in perceptions
the Zion plant is north of Chicago at the Illinois-Wis- and attitudes between men and women.(17)There also
consin state line. might be State differences due to the greater publicity
The surveys were conducted using a computer as- about waste in Michigan. The partition by region and
sisted telephone interviewing system, through the Uni- gender provides an initial assessment of the role of stan-
versity of New Mexico Survey Research Center. Sample dard demographic variables in determining attitudes,
sizes of over 200 interviews were done for each county, perceptions, and knowledge."0.20)
for a total of 606 respondents.
ceived risks for storage, transportation, and disposal are water or gasoline), a solid (like rock or metal), or a gas
much greater, averaging a full point higher than the risk (like natural gas or air)? An example of an institutional
from power production. The most frequent answer to question was: To the best of your knowledge, once the
these later questions fell at the “extreme risk” end of spent fuel is removed from a nuclear power plant, where
the scale. is it usually stored? (i) At the nuclear power plant, (ii)
Consistent with the literature on risk perceptions, In a central storage facility owned by the federal gov-
there were significant differences between men and ernment (iii) In a private storage facility away from the
women. Women perceive greater risk for all phases of plant, or (iv) Somewhere else?
the fuel cycle. These differences do not seem to arise Of the six radiation knowledge questions, an aver-
from a different calibration of risk as there was not a age of 2.8 were answered correctly. Of the six questions
significant difference between women and men for the in the institutional knowledge category, 2.7 were an-
car-risk question. In our data, women perceive greater swered correctly (see Fig. 2). (Examples: 71% of the
risks for nuclear activities even relative to other activities respondents knew that the NRC was the agency respon-
like driving a car. This contrasts with the Nevada results sible for regulating the nuclear power; only 42% knew
reported in Table I in which nuclear attitudes did not that nuclear fuel was a solid; only 40% knew that nu-
depend on standard demographic variables; Ref. 16 re- clear fuel was stored on-site. Some indication of the ab-
ports gender effects with regard to nuclear waste atti- sence of publicity in the Midwest about nuclear issues
tudes and perceptions. was the small number (1 1%) who correctly named Ne-
vada as the state under consideration for a storage fa-
cility; 65% said they did not know or did not answer).
4.2. Knowledge The factual knowledge scores were significantly
higher in Michigan than in Illinois, reflecting the greater
Respondents were asked to rate their own knowledge publicity about nuclear issues in Michigan. There were
concerning the production of nuclear power (referred to also gender differences with men scoring almost a full
here as “self-assessed knowledge”). They were also point higher on the knowledge scale.
asked a number of factual questions meant to assess their
general knowledge of radiation and nuclear power.
Perceived Knowledge. Self-assessed knowledge fell 4.3. Assessment of Nuclear Power and Waste
about in the middle of the seven point scale; the average Options
and median scores were 4.64 and 5, respectively. Respon-
dents in Michigan reported slightly greater self-assessed People were asked for their assessment of the cur-
knowledge than those individuals in Illinois (perhaps re- rent level of nuclear powered electricity production, and
flecting the greater media attention to nuclear issues in the also their preferred options for managing waste. Re-
Michigan communities surrounding the power plants), but spondents indicated that current levels of nuclear pow-
the differences were not large. However, there was a sta- ered generation is about right. There was no discernible
tistically significant difference between men and women difference between Michigan and Illinois. But consistent
with men tending to put themselves closer to the “very with their different risk perceptions, men tended to favor
knowledgeable” end of the scale. slight increases in nuclear power whereas women
Factual Knowledge. Two composite knowledge thought there should be decreases.
scores were constructed for each individual. A radiation Evaluation of Waste Management Alternatives. Re-
knowledge index was constructed from the questions on spondents were presented with three currently discussed
radiation and waste characteristics, while an institutional options for storing nuclear waste. The average responses
knowledge index was built from the questions about the showed greatest opposition to a regional repository, with
institutions that manage waste. An answer was considered on-site and permanent repositories receiving about the
correct if “definitely true,” or “probably true” was the same level of support (see Fig. 3). The distribution of
response when “true” was the correct answer, and simi- responses revealed clustering at the ends of the scale
larly for the questions where false was the correct answer. with either strong opposition or strong support. For on-
Examples of radiation knowledge questions were; site storage, 22% reported strong support, but 24% were
(i) Since the detonation of the first atomic bomb, man- strongly opposed; the remaining answers fell uniformly
made radiation is known to have resulted in new species between the extremes. For the question concerning re-
of plants and animals, and (ii) To the best of your knowl- gional storage the most frequent response (25%) was
edge, is the fuel in a nuclear power plant a liquid (like strong opposition. For “a single underground storage
314 Bassett, Jenkins-Smith, and Silva
3.35
institutions Radiation
3.15
2.95
T
I
2.76
2.55
2.35
2.1 5
1.95
1 I I
1.75
Fig. 2. Knowledge.
site in a remote area” 28% were strongly opposed, but to the DOE’S characterization of a repository by resi-
22% strongly supported the option, and the rest fell uni- dents in Nevada, combined with evident lack of trust
formly in between. These patterns appeared in responses and confidence in the DOE, has led some analysts to
from both states and from men and women. suggest a causal connection; namely, that lack of trust
The absence of clear NIMBY response (in which is the main reason for opposition? (23.91 The survey there-
waste should be in someone else’s backyard) was con-
sistent with what had been observed at the focus groups. 5 The absence of progress in the related area of low-level radioactive
When presented with a range of storage options, partic- waste suggests caution in relying too much on trust and confidence
as a cause of (or solution) to the waste problem. For low level waste
ipants initially opted for the NIMBY solution, but
there is no DOE involvement, there is no direct bomb stigma (stigma
changed when informed that Nevada residents did not might actually be positive because of nuclear medicine’s contribution
want the waste. Focus group members struggled for con- to the waste), and siting groups have sought to build trust among
sensus, while recognizing the waste would ultimately local residents. Still, there has been no progress in identifying loca-
have to be in someone’s backyard. tions for storing waste.“’ Creating and maintaining trust is obviously
important, but its absence for institutions charged with managing
nuclear waste does not mean that it would have been any easier to
4.4. Trust resolve issues. Resolving disputes in which all parties do not come
out ahead on all aspects of a solution might cause some participants
There has been recent emphasis on trust as a key to lack trust if only because, on some criterion, they have fared
ingredient to management of nuclear waste. Opposition poorly.
Storage of Nuclear Waste 315
fore included several questions on trust that were meant on work and the time needed to clean up the area if
to provide a baseline for comparing attitudes on trust in there was an accident.
institutions. Responses were fairly consistent; people thought an
The highest trust score was for environmental in- accident would cause people to become seriously ill and
terest groups, followed by the Environmental Protection die and that living in the area would continue to be dan-
Agency (EPA), the NRC, the DOE, and finally the nu- gerous for many years. Regarding clean-up of the waste,
clear industry. Trust in the nuclear power industry was men were more likely than women to think that it would
slightly greater among Michigan respondents. The point be possible to remediate the site of the accident. Mich-
estimate indicated men had greater trust in institutions, igan respondents thought waste could be cleaned up, but
but the difference was not statistically significant. Illinois respondents were more likely to think that clean-
What was the relationship between trust and the up would be impossible.
level of support for the various nuclear waste manage-
ment options? As was found in earlier research,@)the
greater the trust in the Department of Energy, the greater 4.6. On-Site Storage for the Foreseeable Future
the support for a centralized nuclear waste repository
strategy (correlation = 0.16, p < 0.0001). However, this A number of questions were asked concerning pos-
relationship held between trust for DOE and all three sible economic impacts from continued on-site storage.
repository strategies. Interestingly, the same pattern of The idea was to compare and contrast responses with
relationships-more trust associated with greater sup- those that have been reported for Nevada.
port-held for other involved government agencies The first questions dealt with the effect on home
(including the Environmental Protection Agency and the values. The question was: Suppose that it became widely
Nuclear Regulatory Commission) in roughly the same known that a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of
magnitudes. Thus, the link between trust and nuclear your home was to become a storage site for high-level
waste policy support is not unique to DOE and a cen- nuclear waste for the foreseeable future. What do you
tralized repository strategy, but holds across quite dif- suppose would be the effect on the value of your home?
ferent strategies and governmental agencies. The most frequent response was that individuals be-
lieved that values would decrease (39%), though many
(34%)thought there would be no change in the value of
4.5. Likelihood and Impact of an Accident their home or chose not to not answer the question, and
2% thought values would increase (see Fig. 5). Among
Respondents were asked about the likelihood of an those who foresaw a decrease there was about a 25%
accident. The specific question was: As you may know, reported drop in home values (see Fig. 6). Responses
spent radioactive fuel is now being stored at operating between Illinois and Michigan and between men and
nuclear power plants. How likely do you think it is that women were similar.
there will be an accident involving these radioactive Relocation. People were asked if on-site storage for
wastes which would result in the release of radiation into the foreseeable future would or would not make it likely
the environment? On a 10-point scale, where zero means they would move to another area. Responses were at
an accident will never happen, and ten means an acci- both ends of the scale with 31% saying it would not
dent is certain to happen, where do you place your views increase the chance they would move and 21% saying
regarding the possibility of an accident? it would greatly increase their chance of relocation. Con-
Responses fell over the full range, but were skewed sistent with other parts of the survey the Illinois and
slightly toward the “certain to happen” end of the scale; women respondents expressed a significantly greater
2 1% of the sample thought an accident was “nearly cer- likelihood of moving.
tain” and gave scores of 9 or 10 (see Fig. 4). Consistent Employment, Business, and Tourism. People were
with their higher risk assessments, women viewed ac- asked for their assessment of economic impacts on the
cidents as more likely by a full point. There was little local area if it became widely known that a decision had
difference between states. been made to opt for on-site storage for the foreseeable
Efects of Accident. Respondents were asked to con- future. The response patterns for employment, business,
sider what would happen if an accident resulted in the and tourism were similar (see Fig. 7). Responses were
release of the radioactive wastes into the environment. skewed toward the “adverse impact” end of the scale
Options included whether people near the facility would with Illinois residents and women perceiving largest im-
die or become ill. They were also asked about effects pacts.
316 Bassett, Jenkins-Smith, and Silva
7 =support
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
1
3.20
3.00 a I i
On Site Regional Sites Repository
1 =Oppose
(Note: Intervals are 95% Confidence Regions)
For the employment question, responses were ceptions merely due to differences in other variables
skewed toward the “employment would fall a lot such as knowledge and education? And do increased
lower” end of the scale, though the most fiequent re- perceptions of risk make it more likely that a person
sponse was that employment would stay about the same would say they would move if nuclear waste was left
(few thought there would be an increase in employ- on-site? Preliminary answers are provided by regressions
ment). The patterns for new business formation was sim- involving variables that have been previously identified
ilar with responses skewed to the “fewer new business in the literature as important factors determining per-
moving in” end of the spectrum. Similarly, most thought ceived risk.
that on-site storage would result in about the same or
Table IV presents results for perceived risk. The
fewer tourists into the area.
table shows separate regressions for each perceived risk
category. Independent variables were: gender (0 = fe-
4.7. Regression Results male), location (0 = Illinois), radiation knowledge, fac-
tual knowledge, self-assessed knowledge (with 1
Is increased knowledge associated with lower per- indicating the greatest and 7 least self-assessed knowl-
ceived risk? Are the differences in female-male risk per- edge), age, and education.
Storage of Nuclear Waste 317
60 -
46 -I
40 --
36 --
Never Accident Likelihood Certain
X 2 6 --
20 --
16 --
lo --
6 --
0 ; I II I I
Ill Mim F.ma* M.*
Lwoa. I-- sl
b cmmdnnw lwol!4
Fig. 6. Change in home values for those who thought values would
decrease.
1.40
Women
1 .oo
_i
on knowledge suggested that knowledge might be a
proxy for the observed gender differences in risk per-
ceptions. Table IV shows that this is not the case; gender
-0.20
I1
differences persist even after controlling for the other
I I
-0.60
factors affecting risk perception. Greater knowledge con-
tinues to be associated with decreased perceived risk, but
gender is the quantitatively most important determinant I
I '
- 1 .oo
Table IV. Perceived Risk Regressions except for perceived risk; the greater the perceived risk,
Temp. Pennant the greater the reported likelihood of moving.
Car Power storage Transport storage The regressions indicate gender and knowledge are
important determinants of perceived risk, and perceived
Intercept (t-stat) 3.62 4.83 5.50 5.30 5.92
risk influences the willingness to move. The low R2 val-
8.03 11.19 12.63 12.61 13.43
ues mean there is considerable variability in risk percep-
Gender (r-stat) -0.29 -0.46 -0.64 -0.42 -0.51
1.83 2.98 4.13 2.82 3.21
tions after accounting for demographic characteristics.
This variability is due to the inherent “noisiness” of the
Residence
(Ill. or Mich.) -0.04 0.14 0.19 0.23 0.16 risk perception signal. The simple correlations (not
(t-stat) 0.22 0.87 1.21 1.52 0.99 shown) among the four nuclear questions (transporta-
Radiation tion, storage, generation, and disposal) were all positive,
knowledge -0.03 -0.16 -0.17 -0.15 -0.18 significantly different from zero (so, high perceived risk
(t-stat) 0.57 2.77 2.96 2.64 3 .OO for one nuclear category is associated with high risk for
Institutional other nuclear categories), but the correlations are mod-
knowledge 0.15 -0.20 -0.08 -0.04 -0.15 est; squared correlations are never greater than .36.
(1-stat) 2.37 3.37 1.28 0.76 2.53 Hence, while there is evidently a common “nuclear”
Self-assessed factor affecting risk perceptions, it does not lead to iden-
knowledge 0.10 0.20 0.13 0.14 0.10
tical perceptions across the nuclear categories.
(t-stat) 1.94 4.05 2.75 3.00 2.02
Age 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00
(1-stat) 0.71 2.07 1.25 0.69 .82
4.8. Summary
Education -0.08 -0.14 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06
(t-stat) 1.58 2.70 0.72 1.09 1.1 1
Our results indicate that on-site and centralized re-
Adjusted RZ ,105 ,121 ,111 .07 1 ,098
pository storage of high level nuclear wastes may result
in the same kinds of perception-based impacts. There
are, in fact, strong reasons to suspect that on-site storage
Table V. Home-Move Regression
will be received with about the same degree of enthu-
siasm from nearby residents as would a centralized re-
Likelihood of moving pository from its neighbors. Nuclear waste risks are
Intercept 3.79 perceived very differently nuclear power risks; there ap-
(t-stat) 3.32 pears to be no “carry over” of acceptance from one to
Gender -0.35 the other. Furthermore, among the counties surveyed
(t-stat) 0.88 there is a perception that a deliberate policy of on-site
Residence storage for the foreseeable future will lead to socioeco-
(Ill. or Mich.) 0.24 nomic harms, including loss of jobs, tourism, and busi-
(t-stat) 0.44 nesses. Indeed, these are precisely the kinds of harms
Risk of temp. storage 0.37 reported for a centralized repository in Nevada.
(t-stat) 3.61
Age -0.01
(t-stat) 1.87
5. CONCLUSION
Distance from plant 0.00
(t-stat) 0.72
Income -0.29 Our survey results indicate that on-site nuclear
(t-stat) 1.02 waste storage would be perceived as a costly and un-
Education -0.12 welcome strategy by people who live near nuclear power
(t-stat) 0.82 plants. They believe that, should it become widely
R2 ,095 known that nuclear waste would be stored on-site for the
foreseeable future, tourism, jobs, and business reloca-
tions would all be adversely affected. Furthermore, there
would be substantial fear of accidents and their conse-
quences. Our results differ from those summarized for
distance from the plant as reported by the respondent, Nevada(I8)in that attitudes and perceptions appear gen-
income, and age. None of the variables are significant, erally consistent with standard demographic and knowl-
Storage of Nuclear Waste 319
edge variables. Perceived risk is lowest among groups Models of the Relation of Stated Intent to Actual Behavior,
Agency for Nuclear Projects, Nuclear Waste Project Office, Re-
with greater knowledge, and women and men show con- port NO. NWPO-SE-035-90 (1990).
sistent differences in attitudes and risk perceptions. 5. D. Easterling and H. Kunreuther, The Vulnerability of the Con-
Overall, these results provide hints of how residents vention Industry to the Siting of a High Level Nuclear Waste
Repository. Mimeo.
near nuclear power plants will perceive a policy in which 6. K. Erikson, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind.” New York Times Mag-
high level nuclear waste is left on-site for the foreseeable azine March 6, p. 34 (1994).
future. While our survey was limited in its size and 7. J. Flynn, R. Kasperson, H. Kunreuther, and P. Slovic, “Time to
scope, and the sample included only three of the ap- Rethink Nuclear Waste Storage,” Issues in Science and Technol-
ogy 8(4), 4 2 4 8 (1992).
proximately 70 sites were waste exists, it does indicate 8. J. Flynn, W. Burns, C. K. Mertz, and Paul Slovic, “Trust as a
that residents near nuclear power plants express the same Determinant of Opposition to a High-Level Radioactive Waste
kinds of reservations about an on-site storage strategy as Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model,” Risk Analysis 12(3),
4 1 7 4 2 9 (1992).
those obtained from Nevada residents about a centralized 9. J. Flynn and P. Slovic, “Nuclear Waste and Public Trust,” Forum
storage strategy. These conclusions are tentative, how- 8(1) (1993).
ever: more conclusive findings await a direct comparison 10. H. Jenkins-Smith and G. W. Bassett, Jr., “Perceived Risk and
between residents in Nevada and those near nuclear Uncertainty of Nuclear Waste: Differences Among Science, Busi-
ness and Environmental Group Members,” Risk Analysis 14(5),
power plants. Further, more work is needed regarding 851-856 (1994).
the stated intent reported in surveys and eventual behav- 11. R. E. Kasperson, 0. Renn, P. Slovic, H. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble,
ior. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence to question the J. X. Kasperson, and S. Ratick, “The Social Amplification of
Risk A Conceptual Framework,” Risk Analysis 8(2), 177 (1988).
expectation of benign consequences of on-site storage. 12. R. Keeney and D. von Winterfeldt, “Managing Nuclear Waste
Future analysis of nuclear waste options should include from Power Plants,” Risk Analysis 14(1), 107-130 (1994).
the potential for perception based impacts of longer-term 13. H. Kunreuther, W. Desvouges, and P. Slovic, “Public Perceptions
on-site storage of nuclear waste like those that have been of Risk from the Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository,” Environ-
ment 30(8), 17-33 (1988).
forecasted to occur in Nevada. 14. H. Kunreuther and P. Slovic, Forecasting the Adverse Economic
Consequences of A Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada, paper
presented at the 1989 AAAS Meeting (1989).
15. H. Kunreuther, D. Easterling, W. Desvouges, and P. Slovic, “Pub-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS lic Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Reposi-
tory in Nevada,” Risk Analysis 10(4), 4 6 9 4 8 4 (1990).
This research has been supported in part by a con- 16. C. K. Mertz, J. Flynn, and P. Slovic, The 1994 Nevada State
tract from the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Telephone Survey: Key Findings, State of Nevada, Agency for
Nuclear Projects (December 1994).
Management of the Department of Energy to Sandia Na- 17. R. E. O’Conner and R. J. Bord, Are Women Really More Envi-
tional Laboratory and the University of New Mexico. ronmentally Concerned? Gender Differences and the Politics of
We gratehlly acknowledge helphl comments from Environmentalism, Paper presented at the Midwest Political Sci-
ence Association, Chicago (April 1994).
Warner North, Paul Slovic, and anonymous reviewers. 18. E. A. Rosa, R. Dunlap, and M. Kraft, “Prospects for Public Ac-
We would like to especially thank Patricia Van Nelson ceptance of a High Level-Nuclear Waste Repository in the United
for support and encouragement. States: Summary and Implications,” in R. E. Dunlap, M. E. Kraft,
and E. A. Rosa (eds.), Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citi-
zens’ Views of Repository Siting (Duke University Press, Durham,
NC, 1993), pp. 291-324.
REFERENCES 19. R. E. Russell, “Nuclear Waste, Policy Meltdown,” Public Utili-
ties Fortnightly July 1, 15-17 (1994).
1. G. W. Bassett and R. Hemphill, “Perceived Risk, Stigma, and 20. P. Slovic, “Perceptions of Risk,” Science 236, 28Ck285 (1987).
Potential Economic Impacts of a High-level Nuclear Waste Re- 21. P. Slovic, M. Layman, and J. H. Flynn, “Lessons from Yucca
pository in Nevada: Comment,” Risk Analysis 11(4), 697-700 Mountain,” Environment 33(3) (1991).
(1991). 22. P. Slovic, J. H. Flynn, and M. Layman, “Perceived Risk, Trust,
2. G. W. Bassett, “A Question of Waste, Not Trust,’’ Forum 9(1), and the Politics of Nuclear Waste,” Science 254, 1603-1607
126 (1994). (1991).
3. D. Coates, V. Heid, and M. Munger, “Not Equitable, Not Effi- 23. P. Slovic, M. Layman, N. Kraus, J. H. Flynn, J. Chalmers, and
cient: U.S. Policy on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal,” G. Gesell, “Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Im-
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(3), 5 2 6 5 3 8 pacts of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada,” Risk
(1994). Analysis 11(4), 6 8 3 4 9 6 (1991).
4. D. Easterling, V. Morwitz, and H. Kunreuther, Estimating the Ec- 24. Technical Review Committee for the State of Nevada, Interim
onomic Impact of a Repository from Scenario-Based Surveys: Statement of the Technical Review Committee (January 1990).